Global Warming Hysteria

by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ithinkisee

  I think skepticism is helpful.
  
  I think certain sweeping claims made by the pro-Global Warming people are extreme.
  
  But I can't deny that humans are affecting the earth in ways we never have in the history of mankind.
  
  My real problem is this:

  Say you have one scientist that says "the world is round".
  
  You have another scientist that says "the world is flat".
  
  Journalists and others will say, "Well, we need to give a fair amount of time to hear both sides of the argument." (In fact that is a common phrase FOX News broadcasters use when being accused of lying or employing questionable journalistic practices or broadcasting poorly researched half-truths.)

  My personal opinion is, "No, we don't have to hear both sides in the instance where one side is clearly lying. One is right and the other is clearly lying."
  
  Maybe that is the wrong opinion to have, but that's how I feel.
  
  -ithinkisee
• 

  Abaddon

  With the first three scientists mentioned by the unqualified political hack authoring this Blog one has to note;

  • The blog author doesn't know or dishonestly represent the reasons for Christopher Landsea's objections; he holds WITH global warming, and man having a part. He just objected to it saying hurricanes would be worse.
  • Richard Lindzen is gun for hire and will only make ludicrously safe bets that he is right.
  • Frederick Seitz was effectively dimissed as being of no use as an apologist by CEO of R J Reynolds due to his advanced age and cloudy thinkng.

  Just Wiki their names. Or did checking the credibility of an article not occur to you BEFORE you jumped behind it?

  Until you 'antis' come up with more credible references, or actually start discussing the science and showing us how informed you are and how ignorant the rest of us are (which you clearly think anyway), you're just flapping your gums, making as credible an argument as someone in 1985 saying cigarettes don't cause cancer, and listening to the same sort of apologists as trotted ut such nonsence then.

  Enjoy! I'll not hold my breath. Although I would enjoy a decent debate about the scientific claims made on either side I doubt any of you will oblige me.
• 

  metatron

  The phrase you're forgetting is ad hominem - and that makes debate pointless.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  I personally think that both sides are using this to polarize this issue to garner political capitol. I am of the opinion that, like all truth, it is going to be found in the middle of the polarizing arguements.

  However, that being said, the almighty lord Abaddon has pontificated from on high, so why even debate it. After all, he's so smart, and the rest of us are all so dumb.
• 

  Big Tex

  Ok, I'll bite, where do you suggest future energy come from ???

  Right there with ya Bug. We actually investigated solar panels for our house last year and the cost was tens of thousands of dollars with no guarantee that would even be sufficient to run the house (air conditioning, et al). I don't have that kind of money (frankly living paycheck to paycheck is tough enough). I'll be glad to go green (or at least greener) when there is a reasonable alternative for middle class schmoes like me.

  From what I've read and heard, there is little doubt the Earth is getting warmer; it appears that the cause is under debate. It seems reasonable to me that if we pumps hundreds of tons of carbon into the atmosphere over a century it would bound to have some sort of effect.

  Frankly I'd like to see some sort of "Manhattan Project" type solution to this problem. Get the best and brightest together until an alternative energy source at least is pointed toward (hydrogen? fusion?)

  Chris
• 

  Briguy

  To me this is just another phase that others make for personal gain. Anyone remember the rain forest, green house effect? Heck even had a few Awake's came out on some of these things. Now you never hear of them.
• 

  RAF

  doomsaying about the End of the World

  It won't be the end of the world ... but what a change ... How many losses? ...
  Since we won't agree (all countries and citizens to really care about this for our imediat confort) we will have to face IT ... Also less soil available = More WARS (differents kinds for differents things) ... I guess we may learn for good from that ...

  Eddited to correct my spelling ...
• 

  zack

  I'm with Metatron on this one (always enjoy your posts, BTW)

  The Earth is warmer, no doubt. But I don't think man has anything to do with it and certainly cannot do anything about it. Just 30 years ago I was being

  told that we were going into an ice age and we would all be using the metric system (in the US). Hasn't come to pass, huh?

  And why are they picking on carbon dioxide? We BREATHE it out, for crying out loud. Oh here's a solution the hypers of this "crisis" haven't put forward:

  They should all volunteer to simultaneously QUIT BREATHING thus reducing the total amount of co2 emmisions.
• 

  Balsam

  The affects of global warming has been around since the late 1960's. Scientist warned the US about it and other nations that were using a lot of fossil fuels. Of course because it would mean major changes no one did a single thing about it. Now it will come back to bite everyone in the butt. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will curse us for not doing something about this when we were warned 40 years ago. Shame on us, especially here in the USA.
• 

  rekless

  I'm sitting in South Dakota, we have had the coldest winter in decades,

  the weather man say.

  I have 12 " snow in my yard, and it is worst in other parts of the country.

  The Earth and weather runs in cycles. In the 70s or 80s they were crying an ice age is coming, an ice age is coming.